ga

Gregory S. Forman, a lawyer from South Carolina, has a helpful blog post titled "What makes a good request for admission?" If you happen to be drafting some requests for admissions, you might want to take a look. I advise reading the whole thing, so that you'll fully understand Forman's closing lines--

Thus, the ideal request to admit is: 1) not trivial; 2) not already acknowledged; and 3) narrow enough that an admission is useful but a denial is subject to impeachment.

Here's a checklist of some questions you can ask about documents at depositions, while ignoring the objection from the other side that the document "speaks for itself." It doesn't, and the objection can be ignored--

Who wrote the document;

Who received the document;

Whether the witness received the document;

Whether the witness maintained the document in printed or electronic format, and where, and why;

Where the original of the document is maintained;

The identity of the author and the recipients;

The identify of others mentioned in the document;

If the witness wrote the document, what he meant by certain passages;

If the witness didn't write the document but did receive it, whether he took any action as a result of reading the document;

Whether the facts contained in the document are accurate, and why or why not;

Whether the events described in the document are described correctly, and why or why not;

Whether the witness agrees with the way particular passages are phrased, and why or why not;

Whether the document refreshes the witness's recollection on points about which the witness claimed to have no memory;

Whether the witness reviewed the document in preparation for the deposition;

Questions meant to authenticate the document for trial;

Questions meant to establish foundational elements for use of the document at trial.

Note that these questions can be mixed or matched, used or not used, as the situation merits and in any order.

It's the second podcast from Sam Glover and Aaron Street at Lawyerist: "Podcast #2: Paul Floyd on How to Value and Sell a Law Practice." According to Glover, "Among other things, Paul helps lawyers sell their practices, and I wanted to talk to Paul about valuing a practice because I felt like I never got a straight answer when I have asked how to do it."

It's a very interesting interview, which you will enjoy even if you aren't selling a practice. I know I did, especially Floyd's comments about personal-injury firms. I learned a number of things I didn't know.

The podcast also includes a discussion of this question: How do you calculate flat fees when starting out? A great second podcast from Lawyerist.

Another common mistake is failing to exhaust the witness’s answers before moving on. Asking, “Who was there?” is only the first part of the question. Once the witness stops listing names your next question should be, “Was there anyone else?” Otherwise, you run the risk of leaving the deposition with incomplete information. If that missing information emerges at trial, the witness will be able to claim that you did not let him finish (and the transcript will appear to support the witness). Sometimes witnesses simply forget a portion of the truth. Other times the omission is more sinister. But regardless of whether the information was omitted intentionally or unintentionally, by asking, “What else?” or “Do you remember anything else?” you will get a more complete picture of the witness’s position and reduce the likelihood of surprises at trial.

This technique is commonly called "boxing the witness in." As Bradshaw notes, "Only after completely boxing the witness into his answer should you move on to the next topic."

Bradshaw's article contains other good tips too, for example, what to do when a witness includes the phrase "at this time" in the answer. Recommended.

When cross-examining the opposing expert at trial, stick to that old adage--leading questions only. Asking questions that call for either a "yes" or "no" is the best way to keep the opposing expert from giving that self-serving speech that he's just waiting present to the jury . . . and which he will present just as soon as you ask, frustrated at your own inability to elicit the testimony you want, "Well, what is your opinion based on?"

If you did a good job of deposing the expert before trial, your cross-examination won't be as difficult as it might seem. In fact, it should be constructed entirely of questions you have already asked. Consider this basic outline, which will work in many situations--

Weaknesses in the witness’s experience and qualifications that call into question his authority to render the opinions he gave on direct.

Deficiencies in the expert’s preparation to render an opinion.

Assumptions the expert is making to support his opinion that will be disproved in your case.

Admissions the expert made in his deposition that support--

your facts and theories, and

the qualifications, competence, and credibility of your expert and his methods.

Source note: The first paragraph of this post was written after browsing a chapter of On Trial: Lessons from a Lifetime in the Courtroom, by Henry G. Miller.